Poll: Are those without conscience evil or simply the next step in human evolution?
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm getting the feeling this guy came up with this as an idea for a thread after reading that other thread about people who defend themselves in arguments with "I'm an analytical person".
It wouldn't be too hard to come up with a fake persona, all you need is a few words on which to base a personality and a false premise for the starting of a thread.
In fact, my ability to come up with this as a theory worries me. Oh well, I'm sure it's nothing.
It wouldn't be too hard to come up with a fake persona, all you need is a few words on which to base a personality and a false premise for the starting of a thread.
In fact, my ability to come up with this as a theory worries me. Oh well, I'm sure it's nothing.
The development of morals, like every other kind of human development, involves BOTH nature AND nurture. Maybe one can be so strong as to completely dominate the other, but that's probably pretty rare.
As far as the nature aspect, humans are extremely unlikely to "evolve" a lower level of morality and here's why:
Humans, by nature, are social creatures. A bunch of hermits can survive by themselves, but they will have fewer offspring than their social counterparts. Thus, humans who retain their social tendencies will drive evolution of the species.
Immoral actions may provide benefits for the actor which will increase resources and the likelihood of more offspring along with it. However, immorality will always be frowned upon by the community by its very nature. The more immoral the actions, the more likely the community is to ostracize the offender thereby decreasing social interaction and likelihood of more offspring.
At some point, ostracism will always trump resources making the immoral less likely to reproduce overall. This is because even a rich man cannot reproduce alone. However, until that point, the immoral will be about as likely to reproduce as the moral because of the relative balance of resources and social condemnation. Thus, from an evolutionary standpoint, the level of morality is unlikely to significantly change.
Its significantly more likely that the relative standards of immorality will shift in ways that cause older and younger generations to feud within cultures, while entire cultures feud with each other as globalization increases their interactions.
As far as the nature aspect, humans are extremely unlikely to "evolve" a lower level of morality and here's why:
Humans, by nature, are social creatures. A bunch of hermits can survive by themselves, but they will have fewer offspring than their social counterparts. Thus, humans who retain their social tendencies will drive evolution of the species.
Immoral actions may provide benefits for the actor which will increase resources and the likelihood of more offspring along with it. However, immorality will always be frowned upon by the community by its very nature. The more immoral the actions, the more likely the community is to ostracize the offender thereby decreasing social interaction and likelihood of more offspring.
At some point, ostracism will always trump resources making the immoral less likely to reproduce overall. This is because even a rich man cannot reproduce alone. However, until that point, the immoral will be about as likely to reproduce as the moral because of the relative balance of resources and social condemnation. Thus, from an evolutionary standpoint, the level of morality is unlikely to significantly change.
Its significantly more likely that the relative standards of immorality will shift in ways that cause older and younger generations to feud within cultures, while entire cultures feud with each other as globalization increases their interactions.
I don't have a conscience. I have morals, willpower and empathy, but if I do something, I don't feel guilty. As I'm highly unlikely to act against my morals I avoid that a lot of the time.
Does this make me evil or more evolved? No.
Evil is abstract and comparative, suggesting that the evil thing goes against the observer's morals. Fair to say that some will see me as evil, but does that make me inherently evil to everyone? No. As for the evolution thing, it's hard to say whether it's a step anywhere. This comes into the idea of whether a conscience is nature or nurture. I'm betting more on the latter.
Does this make me evil or more evolved? No.
Evil is abstract and comparative, suggesting that the evil thing goes against the observer's morals. Fair to say that some will see me as evil, but does that make me inherently evil to everyone? No. As for the evolution thing, it's hard to say whether it's a step anywhere. This comes into the idea of whether a conscience is nature or nurture. I'm betting more on the latter.
I put "something different" because it was the only thing closest enough to my opinion. I believe everyone has a conscience, and it is something instilled in everyone from birth. Although, I think people can choose to ignore it whenever they please. They still have a conscience, but they just don't bother trying to tap into it.
I have a little conscience, but I can convince myself to do something evil as long as it's profitable. I'm very against evil for evil's sake. I'm still very human though.
I don't see why you're making conscience out to be some kind of genetic trait.
If you ask me, someone who could kill their mother without batting an eye, for example, is evil.
And I love how half the people in this thread claim to have no morals or conscience. Okay.
If you ask me, someone who could kill their mother without batting an eye, for example, is evil.
And I love how half the people in this thread claim to have no morals or conscience. Okay.
and your asking that question to an Evil Mastermind, a proud member of the Evil League of Evil?! bah! I don't have time for....oooo shiny object!!!!!
*ahem* anyways. People without conscience are evil. Well not as bad as me per-se. Now where did I leave my inter-dimensional rift generator. KHELL!!!!!! KEEP YOUR CATS OUT OF MY BOX! they keep on causing paradoxes.
*ahem* anyways. People without conscience are evil. Well not as bad as me per-se. Now where did I leave my inter-dimensional rift generator. KHELL!!!!!! KEEP YOUR CATS OUT OF MY BOX! they keep on causing paradoxes.
A talent? I can't see how being emotionless or without conscience is a talent. Perhaps 'evil' is too strong of a word, but if you look back at those who have shown to be completely without conscience have been those who have ended up either with a life sentence or the death penalty. And said people were also very good at faining emotion and didn't see themselves as sociopathic.george144 said:
An 'improved' human? I know that humans are by no stretch of the means 'perfect', but by what scale are you measuring your superiority on? By what means, and how?
I've gone through selfish stages in my life, and the times I've done this I've felt pretty crappy. The times I've felt best and, more importantly, fulfilled is when I've thought about the needs of others. Maybe we're different, but I see only thinking of yourself and what you want as a quick way to alienate lots of people. How can that be a 'happier existence', when humans by their nature are social beings?
You're not a step forward in human evolution. We had to evolve a conscience to help our survival, so if anything you're a throwback.george144 said:
Human survival is based on co-operation. If nobody was prepared to help other people, we would have all been eaten by the lions long ago. In the short term, it might benefit you to cheat the system by hurting other people, but ultimately that's going to make life harder for you when people realise you're fucking things up for them and exclude you from the rewards of cooperation.
Here's just one hypothetical example: healthcare. Hospitals rely on hundreds of people working together, not entirely for their own gain (nurses could get paid better in other jobs if that was all they cared about) plus cooperation from the government which represents all the people, so it's one big collaborative project. If you started stealing medicine from a sick person in hospital to use on yourself and were banned from the hospital, you wouldn't have the ability to treat yourself when your appendix burst.
Ok, so you're not likely to be banned from hospital no matter what you do (sadly). But most of society is like that. By helping each other, humans make everyone's life better than they if they focused on themselves, and if you cheat that system nobody will want to help you any more.
I'd say thats a downgrade in Evolution isn't it? I mean animals don't seem to share the same level of conciousness that we do, and hense the whole societal-made concience thing arose from our self awareness...
And if you do follow evolution, then we were once 'like animals' So...no, they're not likely to be the next step.
And if you do follow evolution, then we were once 'like animals' So...no, they're not likely to be the next step.
I'd say that yes, they are the next natural step in our evolution. I wouldn't call them evil, as I don't use that word, but something similar too, yes.
Sure, it works really well in our society. It fits in. For many coveted work positions those qualities are actively searched for. It helps with not getting hurt, and it makes it easier to get by for an individual.
I think that that evolution would lower the quality of life for all humans on the planet though, I think that if we see this trait becoming more and more common we should really step back and seriously evaluate our situation, and do something about it. No offence to any people who have this quality, but in my eyes, it's wrong.
Sure, it works really well in our society. It fits in. For many coveted work positions those qualities are actively searched for. It helps with not getting hurt, and it makes it easier to get by for an individual.
I think that that evolution would lower the quality of life for all humans on the planet though, I think that if we see this trait becoming more and more common we should really step back and seriously evaluate our situation, and do something about it. No offence to any people who have this quality, but in my eyes, it's wrong.
To be honest, no. I don't really have a conscience, just something that tells me when that option will lead to bad things. I say no because, i don't think anyone really has no conscience they just don't listen to it so much that, it doesn't seem like it's there, if they listen(this will sound corny) to themselves deep enough they will probably find it.
You can't say that people like that have no conscience, it just means that they have different moral values than other people. Considering that freedom of conscience is one of our fundamental freedoms, I wouldn't say it's even that bad.
People seem to take this to the extreme whenever it's brought up. For example, if I were to care nothing about all the people that die in the world every day of starvation and hunger, or all the children that die of AIDS, people would think that I have absolutely no emotion or that I couldn't care about anyone but myself. Also, that I am truly a self centered, egotistical prick.
Which really, it's not right to say that sort of thing. A) It's assimilationist, you can't force the general beliefs of the masses upon the individual, and B) You're assuming that I have no control over who I do/don't care about. I don't see a problem with being able to choose who it is I care about, especially when it comes to tragedies. Grief is a hindrance, so why do people always seem to think the right thing to do is to feel it at every possible chance?
It's not the next step in human evolution, it's just a difference in moral values that I can appreciate.
People seem to take this to the extreme whenever it's brought up. For example, if I were to care nothing about all the people that die in the world every day of starvation and hunger, or all the children that die of AIDS, people would think that I have absolutely no emotion or that I couldn't care about anyone but myself. Also, that I am truly a self centered, egotistical prick.
Which really, it's not right to say that sort of thing. A) It's assimilationist, you can't force the general beliefs of the masses upon the individual, and B) You're assuming that I have no control over who I do/don't care about. I don't see a problem with being able to choose who it is I care about, especially when it comes to tragedies. Grief is a hindrance, so why do people always seem to think the right thing to do is to feel it at every possible chance?
It's not the next step in human evolution, it's just a difference in moral values that I can appreciate.
Jeez, I've re-written this far too many times.
If you can not feel emotions for other human beings you are one sad person, ?Without pain, there would be no suffering, without suffering we would never learn from our mistakes. To make it right, pain and suffering is the key to all windows, without it, there is no way of life.?
I'm probably going to end up in a drunken rant if I carry this on(I have consumed no Alcohol, but it will sound very much like I have).
All I can say is that we would be in a far worse state if we were all like you.
If you can not feel emotions for other human beings you are one sad person, ?Without pain, there would be no suffering, without suffering we would never learn from our mistakes. To make it right, pain and suffering is the key to all windows, without it, there is no way of life.?
I'm probably going to end up in a drunken rant if I carry this on(I have consumed no Alcohol, but it will sound very much like I have).
All I can say is that we would be in a far worse state if we were all like you.
What I want to know is when in the original post the OP mentioned not being able to feel love. Nor was it stated that he disliked/did not want to work with humans. I think some things have been taken out of context, it was just stated by the OP that sadness and sympathy were two things that were not as important.